I was searching through our “Caught Spam” file last night, trying to find and rescue comments held by our capricious spam filter.Â Amongst the ads for viagra and tramadol and sex sites, I did find a few which should have been posted.Â And others I might have saved were it not for their tone.
One such comment accused us of licking the boots of Sarah Palin because we failed to criticize her when she indicated support of a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. Yes, I’m concerned that, in an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network Correspondent David Brody, Palin said:
I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage.
As I express my concerns, I’ll ask our critics to cite gay organizations who condemned Joe Biden for signaling his opposition to gay marriage in the vice-presidential debate.Â He then articulated the exact same position as did his Republican rival, though not nearly as clearly as did she. Did our critics blog how disappointed they were with their party’s nominee? Did we accuse them of licking his boots for failing to do so?
Much as I’m concerned about Palin’s support for a federal constitutional amendment, I’m not as troubled by it as I was with President Bush’s support in 2004 for a similar proposal. Then, he initiated the public statement. She only responded when asked.Â She’s not using it as a wedge issue as, some said, Bush did in 2004.
Not just that. We know from previous congressional consideration on the matter that neither house could muster the necessary two-thirds majority to send the proposed amendment to the states. It doesn’t stand a chance of passage–as appeared possible four years ago.Â Neither the president nor vice-president has any say in amending the constitution. (Though Joe Biden’s constitutional ignorance* notwithstanding, the vice president could preside over the Senate should it again debate the amendment.)
All that said, I disagree with Palin’s support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage because, as I’ve said before, the issue doesn’t belong there.
But, I wonder at our critics readiness to slight us for not faulting a candidate we support when she takes a stand with which we disagree. Do they so readily condemn their candidate every time he makes an unfortunate or untoward remark or espouses a policy they oppose?
*In the vice presidential debate, he said:
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
Sorry, Joe, Article I (which defines the legislative not executive branch as you said in the debate), Section 3 includes this “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” In other words, he presides over the Senate and not just when there’s a tie vote.
UPDATE:Â Glenn links a post which gets at our critics attacking us for not blogging about certain things: “anytime a reader purports to attack you for not blogging about X, his real beef is that you are blogging about Y, and the reader would really like you to shut up about Y.“Â Sounds about right.